Adobe, Apple, Intel, and Adobe have come to a new agreement with plaintiffs to settle a class-action lawsuit over employee mobility and compensation. The action follows a previous attempt to settle the case that failed last year.

The companies announced the news today in a filing to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Reuters reported.

“The parties have reached a new settlement agreement that is subject to district court approval,” Mayer Brown partner Donald Falk, who is representing Google in the case, wrote in the new filing. “The plaintiffs imminently are expected to file a motion for preliminary approval with the district court. After that filing, petitioners will make a submission to this Court regarding the mandamus proceeding.”

The case follows a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into practices that it perceived as anti-competitive and detrimental to employees who seek better job opportunities, according to an earlier court filing. For instance, companies agreed to not cold-call other companies’ employees, according to the filing.

]]>0Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe once again try to settle wage-theft caseApple files to dismiss iPod antitrust case as plaintiffs are disqualifiedhttp://venturebeat.com/2014/12/05/apple-files-to-dismiss-ipod-antitrust-case-as-plaintiffs-are-disqualified/
http://venturebeat.com/2014/12/05/apple-files-to-dismiss-ipod-antitrust-case-as-plaintiffs-are-disqualified/#commentsFri, 05 Dec 2014 19:12:24 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=1619708Plaintiffs' attorneys today withdrew the name of one of the two people who claimed harm, leaving just one New Jersey woman as the sole member of the class action.
]]>

There’s been a surprising new turn of events in the antitrust case against Apple now happening in Oakland, California. Amid questions about the credibility of the plaintiffs in the class action suit, Apple lawyers have filed to dismiss the case altogether.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys today withdrew the name of one of the two people who claimed harm, leaving just one New Jersey woman as the sole member of the class action.

Apple lawyers yesterday raised serious doubts about whether some members of the class action even owned iPods during the period between 2006 and 2009 in which Apple is accused of antitrust violations. Apple’s lawyers made this discovery after researching the serial numbers on the devices in question.

And the remaining plaintiff, Mariana Rosen, may be disqualified too. Apple believes that Rosen too did not own an iPod during the period for which Apple is accused. From Apple lawyers’ filing to the court today: “Ms. Rosen’s trial testimony with regard to her alleged purchase of the two iPods in 2007 and 2008 was not credible.”

In the decade-old case, Apple is accused of taking steps to block iPod users from downloading songs from music services other than iTunes.

The case continued Friday with testimony from Apple’s head of iTunes software Jeff Robbin. Another videotaped deposition of Steve Jobs is expected to be shown in court later in the day.

Apple will go to trial in Oakland, Calif. tomorrow over a decade-old class action suit alleging that the company unfairly prevented iPod users from using non-Apple music services.

Apple, the accusation goes, used a clever upgrade to the DRM software in iTunes to prevent iPod users from downloading music from Real Networks’ music store.

Real Networks. DRM. iPod. It’s all a bit of a flashback. Since DRM doesn’t exist in music any more, the result of the trial can have no impact on today’s technology.

Sure Apple could lose $350 million if it’s found guilty. That’s nothing to a company on its way to a trillion-dollar valuation. And a loss can’t even be considered a public relations hit, because the Apple of 2004 is so different than the market giant we know today.

But some prominent Apple people will show up at the trial, including Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller and Eddy Cue, who oversees iTunes today. It’s possible those big names will be there to protect the image of the late Steve Jobs.

They will have their work cut out for them.

“We will present evidence that Apple took action to block its competitors and in the process harmed competition and harmed consumers,” Bonny Sweeney, the lead plaintiffs’ lawyer told The New York Times. Some of that evidence will be Jobs’ emails.

Like this beauty from 2003, in which Jobs worries about the effect of a competing music service on the iPod. “We need to make sure that when Music Match launches their download music store they cannot use iPod,” the email reads. “Is this going to be an issue?”

The court will also see a videotaped deposition from Jobs on the anti-trust allegations and the purpose of the iTunes software upgrades at the center of the case. The video was taken just months before Jobs’ death in 2011.

In another email (released in court documents from another case), Jobs asks Google CEO Eric Schmidt to stop poaching his people. “I am told that Googles new cellphone software group is relentlessly recruiting in our iPod group,” Jobs wrote. “If this is indeed true, can you put a stop to it?”

Jobs worked without much of a filter, both in person and in digital communications, apparently.

But this was arguably the right kind of voice for Jobs and Apple in 2004. Apple was trying to battle back from near obscurity in the 1990s, and the iPod was the symbol of the Jobs vision that would lead the way.

]]>0Steve Jobs emails and killer instinct are all Apple antitrust has to offerChina steps up its hostile rhetoric with a harsh warning to Microsofthttp://venturebeat.com/2014/08/04/china-steps-up-its-hostile-rhetoric-with-a-harsh-warning-to-microsoft/
http://venturebeat.com/2014/08/04/china-steps-up-its-hostile-rhetoric-with-a-harsh-warning-to-microsoft/#commentsTue, 05 Aug 2014 00:00:50 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=1519845In its harshest language yet, China warns Microsoft to get its act together in a sign of rising tensions between Washington and Beijing
]]>

Beijing has sternly put Microsoft on notice to comply with the Chinese government’s antitrust case — or else.

In language usually reserved for political opponents, dissidents, or countries it has a beef with, China warned Microsoft not to interfere with its antitrust investigation into the Seattle-based giant. Beijing accuses Microsoft of failing to share or release documents for its Windows OS and Office software suites.

A harshly worded statement on the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) website officially warned Microsoft to follow state law and, according to the New York Times, “not to interfere with or hinder the investigation in any way.”

The warning falls on the heels of raids that SAIC agents carried at Microsoft offices in Beijing, Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Chengdu in late July.

While the raids didn’t result in any arrests, agents seized documents and computers. The move appears to be an attempt to send a message to Microsoft and other U.S. technology outfits operating in China that Beijing has issues with the increased presence and influence of foreign tech companies inside the country — and the potential for them to engage in spying.

In fact, China is increasingly using its muscle to confront U.S. tech companies who provide Beijing and its people with software and hardware. It sends a big message that China is weary of its reliance on U.S. technology and that the Asian superpower needs to be more reliant on products and services by Chinese IT companies.

The warning is a byproduct, too, the Times said, of China’s increasing concern over Edward Snowden’s epic document leaks about National Security Agency spying. China fears that the NSA is using Microsoft and other U.S. tech firms to insert Trojan horses and spyware into technology widely used by the Chinese government, like desktops PCs and software.

Their fears could be seen as well-founded. But the tactics here are purely Cold War.

More information:

More information:

]]>0China steps up its hostile rhetoric with a harsh warning to MicrosoftChina confirms probe into Microsoft over antitrust concernshttp://venturebeat.com/2014/07/29/china-confirms-probe-into-microsoft-over-antitrust-concerns/
http://venturebeat.com/2014/07/29/china-confirms-probe-into-microsoft-over-antitrust-concerns/#commentsTue, 29 Jul 2014 16:38:18 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=1515912After an unexpected raid of Microsoft's offices in China yesterday, the country's State Administration for Industry and Commerce is confirming an investigation into possible anti-competition practices at Microsoft.
]]>

After an unexpected raid of Microsoft’s offices in China yesterday, the country’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) is confirming an investigation into possible anti-competition practices at Microsoft, reports the Wall Street Journal.

The raids took place in Microsoft’s Beijing, Shanghai, Chengdu, and Guangzhou offices. The SAIC reportedly confiscated emails and documents as well as internal correspondence and two computers.

Businesses have filed complaints about Microsoft’s Windows 8 and Windows Office, including questions about the way products are bundled together and certain security features, the SAIC said, according to the Wall Street Journal.

China is a huge opportunity for many companies, because not only is there a giant population of 1.35 billion people, but the country has a large upper middle class. However, government restrictions and piracy make it difficult for companies to do business in China. And since Edward Snowden’s revelations about U.S. national security agency data collection practices, doing business there has gotten even harder for U.S. companies.

Some are speculating that China is also using antitrust laws to protect native companies.

Earlier this month, China Telecom announced it had contracted with Microsoft to sell the Xbox One when it launches in the fall. It’s unclear now, though, whether, with the SAIC probe, the Xbox One will still hit its target launch date.

More information:

More information:

]]>0China confirms probe into Microsoft over antitrust concernsHow Bazaarvoice became the poster child for how NOT to do an acquisitionhttp://venturebeat.com/2014/02/21/the-doj-wants-to-squash-reviews-network-bazaarvoice-and-the-company-has-it-coming/
http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/21/the-doj-wants-to-squash-reviews-network-bazaarvoice-and-the-company-has-it-coming/#commentsFri, 21 Feb 2014 21:00:18 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=949828Guest:The DOJ is out to squash reviews network Bazaarvoice. And emails between the company's own employees are the core of the government’s case.
]]>GUEST:

Acquisitions are a good thing for companies and shareholders. They bring new customers, faster growth, new technologies, economies of scale, and create other efficiencies. But for user-review software heavyweight Bazaarvoice, the fallout from its ill-fated 2012 acquisition of competitor PowerReviews just hit a new, nightmarish low-point last week as the Justice Department filed a 60-page document in connection with an antitrust lawsuit, asking for complete divestiture (forced sale) of the PowerReviews assets.

And divestiture was just the beginning.

Because 20 months had passed since the acquisition, the government argued that additional steps were needed to “restore the pre-merger state of competition.” On top of divestiture, it asked the court to:

Force Bazaarvoice to provide cross-network syndication services to the purchaser of the PowerReviews assets at no charge;

Require Bazaarvoice to waive trade-secret/confidentiality restrictions for any employees hired by the divestiture buyer;

Bar Bazaarvoice from interfering with the buyer’s efforts to hire Bizaarvoice employees, even by offering to increase employees’ compensation;

Provide the buyer access to new technology developed by Bazaarvoice after the merger;

Require Bazaarvoice to license additional assets to the buyer if the sale does not transfer a “critical mass” of customers to the new company;

Allow existing customers to terminate their existing contracts with Bazaarvoice;

Appoint a watchdog (for four years) with complete access to Bazaarvoice’s files and personnel to ensure compliance;

Require Bazaarvoice to notify the government of any transaction greater than $10 million.

Lest there is any doubt, these are draconian measures. Any one standing alone would be onerous. In combination, they are crippling and would obligate Bazaarvoice to underwrite the creation and success of a direct competitor by launching and supporting a competing venture using its own technology, employees, trade secrets and customers. If most or all of the demands are granted, the divestiture buyer would be put into a position where failure is nearly impossible.

How did a half-billion dollar company end up in this position? A full retrospective is still premature, but bad documents and hubris were key contributors to the downfall.

Bad decisions appeared from the very beginning. The deal’s total size of $168 million was potentially large enough to require government approval, but PowerReviews’ revenues were just small enough that a loophole allowed it to avoid pre-merger government clearance, even though the deal could still be challenged post-merger. Despite acquiring a direct competitor in a niche market with few players, Austin, Texas-based Bazaarvoice rolled the dice, perhaps hoping the relatively small merger would go unnoticed. The gamble failed – the Justice Department announced an investigation just two days after the June 12, 2012 closing and filed suit in January 2013.

Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act prohibits mergers whose effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” To prevail, the government needed to show a “reasonable likelihood” of anticompetitive effect.

At trial, the most damning evidence of “lessened competition” came from Bazaarvoice’s own employees and executives. Documents described PowerReviews as the “fiercest” competitor that was “challenging Bazaarvoice’s price points.” PowerReviews was “an ankle-biter that cause[d] price pressure in deals,” and it was “common for PowerReviews to provide extremely low pricing to our clients to push them in their favor.”

Competition was heated and personal. Combative attitudes were common, with one employee writing, “I want to screw PR and out them on their heels by wrecking a few of their big accounts and getting us a couple supernodes. You in? Let’s crush these MFs.” Another echoed the desire to “crush” PowerReviews but proposed instead: “damnit, lets just buy them now.” With respect to the acquisition, executives noted that it would provide “relief from … price erosion” that there would be “[n]o meaningful direct competitor” after acquiring PowerReviews.

These emails formed the core of the government’s case, and their breathtaking bluntness has already prompted some to label Bazaarvoice a poster child for how a handful of poorly worded documents can blow up in unexpected ways. Of course, they provide an excellent example for what not to say in emails, particularly when considering an acquisition that may undergo competition review. The language and tenor of the Bazaarvoice emails is unlikely to be unique in the high-octane environment of the tech industry, and their impact in this instance should be a cautionary tale.

The DOJ indicated it intends Bazaarvoice to be a warning for companies contemplating potentially anticompetitive transactions below the official reporting threshold, with Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer publicly announcing, “anticompetitive transactions that are not reported to federal agencies will not receive a free pass.’’ Less explicit, but equally important, was the court’s signal that companies in the tech industry are not shielded from antitrust scrutiny simply because of the industry’s “dynamism” or “rapid change.”

Merger review cases frequently occur in waves, and it would not be surprising for the Justice Department to leverage its experience and arguments in this case to challenge other tech mergers in the near future. Watch your emails if you fall into the crosshairs.

Jiaming “Jimmy” Shang is a senior attorney at the San Francisco Office of Sedgwick LLP and a member of its Antitrust and Unfair Competition Practice Group. He received his J.D. from the University of California – Hastings College of Law and his B.A. from Claremont McKenna College.

More information:

More information:

]]>0How Bazaarvoice became the poster child for how NOT to do an acquisitionGoogle settles EU antitrust probe by promising links to competitorshttp://venturebeat.com/2014/02/05/google-settles-eu-antitrust-probe-by-promising-links-to-competitors/
http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/05/google-settles-eu-antitrust-probe-by-promising-links-to-competitors/#commentsWed, 05 Feb 2014 14:40:45 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=891201Gaming execs: Join 180 select leaders from King, Glu, Rovio, Unity, Facebook, and more to plan your path to global domination in 2015. GamesBeat Summit is invite-only -- apply here. Ticket prices increase on April 3rd! After a three-year antitrust probe by the European Commission, Google is finally out of hot water. The EC announced this morning that it has reached […]
]]>

After a three-year antitrust probe by the European Commission, Google is finally out of hot water.

The EC announced this morning that it has reached a settlement with Google, which will link to at least three of its competitors on specialized search pages (like Google Shopping and Google News), Bloomberg reports. By doing so, Google will avoid fines from the EU — and perhaps most importantly, regulators won’t label it as anti-competitive.

If Google fails to comply with this ruling, it could be fined as much as 10 percent of its global revenues, Bloomberg notes.

“I believe that the new proposal obtained from Google after long and difficult talks can now address the commission’s concerns,” Joaquin Almunia, the EU Competition Commissioner, said in a statement. “It provides users with real choice between competing services presented in a comparable way.”

But despite Google’s concession, its rivals still aren’t happy with the news. David Wood, a lawyer representing some of Google’s competitors, tells Bloomberg that the settlement is a “massive failure” without input by Google’s competitors.

Commissioner Almunia, to his credit, noted today that his goal is to protect competition for consumers — not Google’s competitors.

More information:

More information:

]]>0Google settles EU antitrust probe by promising links to competitorsGoogle’s Waze acquisition sparks FTC antitrust reviewhttp://venturebeat.com/2013/06/22/googles-waze-acquisition-sparks-ftc-antitrust-review/
http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/22/googles-waze-acquisition-sparks-ftc-antitrust-review/#commentsSat, 22 Jun 2013 23:11:51 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=763125Google and Waze, two of the leading companies in the mapping industry, may be a match made in heaven. But Google's $1.1 billion acquisition of the social driving company has, not surprisingly, signaled some alarm bells with antitrust authorities.
]]>Gaming execs:Join 180 select leaders from King, Glu, Rovio, Unity, Facebook, and more to plan your path to global domination in 2015. GamesBeat Summit is invite-only -- apply here. Ticket prices increase on April 3rd!

Google confirmed today that the Federal Trade Commission is reviewing the Waze deal, the Wall Street Journal reports. At this point, investigators are likely exploring how the deal would affect the mapping market, but there’s little chance it would be called off, antitrust lawyers tell the WSJ.

Waze’s apps offer GPS navigation, but they also let drivers send and receive details about road conditions in real time. Ultimately, that means Waze is more useful than standard GPS apps when it comes to figuring out how to avoid traffic jams or speed traps.

We’ve heard Waze was flirting with other suitors before it settled on Google’s deal. Facebook reportedly made a $1 billion offer for the company, but for whatever reason those talks fell apart. Microsoft, an investor in Waze, may have been interested in the company as well.

Google previously said it will keep Waze’s app independent but would also use the company’s traffic data within Google Maps. And of course, Waze would also get some of Google Maps’ technology.

“With the proposed Waze acquisition, the Internet giant would remove the most viable competitor to Google Maps in the mobile space,” wrote Consumer Watchdog privacy project director John Simpson in the letter. “Approval of the Waze deal can only allow Google to remove any meaningful competition from the market. … If the acquisition comes before you, I urge you to reject it in the strongest possible terms.”

]]>1Google’s Waze acquisition sparks FTC antitrust reviewGuilty until proven innocent: Judge already siding against Apple in pretrial hearinghttp://venturebeat.com/2013/05/24/so-much-for-innocent-until-proven-guilty-judge-already-siding-against-apple-in-pretrial-hearing/
http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/24/so-much-for-innocent-until-proven-guilty-judge-already-siding-against-apple-in-pretrial-hearing/#commentsFri, 24 May 2013 15:34:38 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=744206Presumption of innocence is a fundamental component of law in many nations, including Canada, France, Russia, and yes, even, yes, the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is not however, enshrined in the constitution of the United States of America.
]]>Gaming execs:Join 180 select leaders from King, Glu, Rovio, Unity, Facebook, and more to plan your path to global domination in 2015. GamesBeat Summit is invite-only -- apply here. Ticket prices increase on April 3rd!

Presumption of innocence is a fundamental component of law in many nations, including Canada, France, Russia, and even, yes, the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is not however, enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, although it’s often believed to follow from amendments 5, 6, and 14.

Not so much at U.S. District Court in New York, however.

“I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that,” U.S. District Judge Denise Cote said on Thursday.

“Apple has not ‘conspired’ with anyone, was not aware of any alleged ‘conspiracy’ by others, and never fixed prices,” the company stated in a reply to the suit last year.

Tell it to the judge, I guess.

That’s precisely what Apple is attempting to do, but statements like the above must be more than a little worrisome for Apple legal representatives. Perhaps just as worrisome is that Judge Cote has already begun writing a draft of her decision — before the trial has begun.

Evidence has already been submitted to the court, however, and that — apparently — is enough for Cote to form an opinion on the case.

Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream ebooks market at $12.99 and $14.99.

That certainly looks like it could be price-fixing, right?

But here’s the line in the full context of Steve Jobs’ email:

Our proposal does set the upper limit for ebook retail pricing based on the hardcover price of each book. The reason we are doing this is that, with our experience selling a lot of content online, we simply don’t think the ebook market can be successful with pricing higher than $12.99 or $14.99. Heck, Amazon is selling these books at $9.99, and who knows, maybe they are right and we will fail even at $12.99. But we’re willing to try at the prices we’ve proposed. We are not willing to try at higher prices because we are pretty sure we’ll all fail.

As I see it, HC has the following choices:

1. Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream ebooks market at $12.99 and $14.99.

2. Keep going with Amazon at $9.99. You will make a bit more money in the short term, but in the medium term Amazon will tell you they will be paying you 70% of $9.99. They have shareholders too.

3. Hold back your books from Amazon. Without a way for customers to buy your ebooks, they will steal them. This will be the start of piracy and once started there will be no stopping it. Trust me, I’ve seen this happen with my own eyes.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see any other alternatives. Do you?

In that context, Job’s sentence appears to be simply an option that HarperCollins has. And it looks a lot less damning.

It’s not clear what other evidence Judge Cote has seen. And it’s not clear if she’s trying to urge the parties involved to come to a pre-trial settlement by pressuring Apple to make nice and roll over for the DOJ.

But let’s hope she maintains some level of objectivity in the case she’s judging — and that she at least waits until the case is heard in a court of law before making public statements about whether she believe the defendant is guilty or not.

]]>0Guilty until proven innocent: Judge already siding against Apple in pretrial hearingGoogle could face fresh antitrust inspection over its display ad dominancehttp://venturebeat.com/2013/05/24/google-could-face-fresh-antitrust-inspection-over-its-display-ad-dominance/
http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/24/google-could-face-fresh-antitrust-inspection-over-its-display-ad-dominance/#commentsFri, 24 May 2013 14:21:38 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=744151Google could soon be hit with yet another investigation over how it does business - this time in the display ad department.
]]>Gaming execs:Join 180 select leaders from King, Glu, Rovio, Unity, Facebook, and more to plan your path to global domination in 2015. GamesBeat Summit is invite-only -- apply here. Ticket prices increase on April 3rd!

The bigger Google gets, the more often regulators are getting on its case.

The next probe into the company could from the Federal Trade Commission which is trying to figure out whether Google is leveraging its ad market dominance to push customers to its other services, as Bloomberg reports.

Unlike Google’s search dominance, however, Google’s ad market share is far from locked down. The company controls roughly 18 percent of digital display ad revenue — a slight bump over Facebook’s 15 percent, according to the latest numbers from eMarketer. That’s a far cry from a monopoly.

Still, at issue here isn’t Google’s dominance but rather the top-down integration of its many services. It’s one thing to control a market, but its something else to pursue anti-competitive tactics mean to make it impossible for any other company to challenge that control. The FTC is trying to figure out whether that’s what Google is doing.

One thing to keep in mind is that the probe is still in its preliminary stages and might not officially happen. But don’t expect Google’s competitors to stop lobbying for regulator intervention anytime soon.

]]>0Google could face fresh antitrust inspection over its display ad dominanceApple is a price-fixing ringmaster, U.S. says; Apple says that’s ‘absurd’http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/15/apple-is-a-price-fixing-ringmaster-u-s-says-apple-says-thats-absurd/
http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/15/apple-is-a-price-fixing-ringmaster-u-s-says-apple-says-thats-absurd/#commentsWed, 15 May 2013 14:32:35 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=737831"Apple has not 'conspired' with anyone, was not aware of any alleged 'conspiracy' by others, and never fixed prices," the company stated in a reply to the suit.
]]>Gaming execs:Join 180 select leaders from King, Glu, Rovio, Unity, Facebook, and more to plan your path to global domination in 2015. GamesBeat Summit is invite-only -- apply here. Ticket prices increase on April 3rd!

Apple and U.S. book publishers conspired to limit e-book competition and break Amazon’s hold on the digital book market, the U.S. Department of Justice says.

The case, which was filed in April 2012, is finally coming to trial in June. And in new documents that the government filed, the attorney general paints Apple as the ringmaster. All of the other original codefendants, including Harper Collins, the Penguin Group, and Simon & Schuster, have already settled with the government, leaving Apple as the sole defendant.

As the saying goes, them’s fightin’ words. And Apple is fighting back.

“Apple has not ‘conspired’ with anyone, was not aware of any alleged ‘conspiracy’ by others, and never fixed prices,” the company stated in a reply to the suit last year.

The trial is set to begin on June 3.

Above: Apple CEO Tim Cook and iBooks

Image Credit: Dean Takahashi/VentureBeat

The DOJ is pointing to an email from Steve Jobs, in which he told Rupert Murdoch of News Corp to “throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99” as evidence to the contrary.

But Apple says that it was simply establishing the currently accepted agency model of pricing, in which publishers set the price and e-book stores simply sell at that price. That contrasts with the wholesale method of publishing, in which retailers buy books from publishers at whatever price they can negotiate and then sell the books to consumers at whatever price they wish. That is, of course, the model Amazon prefers.

Legal experts such as antitrust author and University of Hartford professor emeritus Dominick Armentano have said that Apple is likely to prevail, since the seller in an agency model market does not actual set any prices. In other words, if there was price-fixing in the agency model, it would have to be undertaken by the publishers themselves.

The bigger question here for Apple and its fans is how Apple used its power in mobile apps to strong-arm publishers such as Random House into agreeing with the deal. According to the DOJ filing, Apple blocked approval of an e-book app from Random House in 2010 until the publisher signed the agency deal.

That’s clearly dirty pool, and using power in what was then an almost all-powerful Apple smartphone ecosystem to influence — or compel — partner behavior in the ebook market.

]]>0Apple is a price-fixing ringmaster, U.S. says; Apple says that’s ‘absurd’Google finally settles its two-year EU inquisitionhttp://venturebeat.com/2013/04/15/google-eu-antitrust-case-to-settle-pending-tests-of-new-search/
http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/15/google-eu-antitrust-case-to-settle-pending-tests-of-new-search/#commentsMon, 15 Apr 2013 20:56:27 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=716557Google has proposed a settlement to the European Commission that involves making legally binding changes to its search results in Europe. If this agreement is adopted, Google will change its results page by clearly highlighting search results from its own services and including links to rivals.
]]>Gaming execs:Join 180 select leaders from King, Glu, Rovio, Unity, Facebook, and more to plan your path to global domination in 2015. GamesBeat Summit is invite-only -- apply here. Ticket prices increase on April 3rd!

Google has proposed a settlement to the European Commission that involves making legally binding changes to its search results in Europe. If this agreement is adopted, Google will change its results page by clearly highlighting search results from its own services and including links to rivals.

This proposal is now up for “market testing,” which means that people can submit comments and the European Commission will decide whether the agreement puts the EC’s antitrust concerns to rest. It follows a three-year investigation by the European Commission that opened in 2010 after rival companies such as Microsoft, smaller European competitors, and consumer rights groups like the European Consumer Organization (BEUC) accused Google of wrong-doing.

“We are concerned that the dominant search engine, Google, may have abused its position in the search market to direct users to its own services and secondly to reduce the visibility of competing websites and services,” wrote head of the BEUC Monique Goyens in a letter to EU antitrust commissioner Joaquín Almunia. “Google continues to expand its areas of activities and develop its own services and products. Given its role as gatekeeper to the Internet, Google is in a unique position to restrict access to its competitors and direct traffic to its own services.”

According to the New York Times, Google’s proposed settlement does not involve changing the algorithm that produces search results and the changes will not be widely seen for at least a month. The biggest change will be in the area of “vertical search” on topics like shopping and travel, which yielded complaints from competitors like Expedia, Yelp, and TripAdvisor who felt Google was favoring its own results over theirs. The agreement will be legally binding for five years. If Google complies, it avoids fines of up to 10 percent of global annual sales, formal finding of “wrong-doing,” and expensive and drawn out antitrust battles.

“We are becoming increasingly concerned that effective and future-proof remedies might not emerge through settlement discussions alone,” said the letter signed by the group. “In addition to materially degrading the user experience and limiting consumer choice, Google’s search manipulation practices lay waste to entire classes of competitors in every sector where Google chooses to deploy them.”

However, this agreement may not appease the group of 11 complainants who recently banded together to send Almunia a letter asking for stronger measures than a settlement.

ComScore found that 86 percent of all online searches in Europe are conducted using Google. Large companies, like Microsoft, Expedia, and TripAdvisor, and smaller competitors such as Foundem and Streetmap EU in the U.K., French price comparison site Twenga, and three German companies, claim that Google’s promotion of its own content creates an unfair advantage. They are seeking to level the playing field.

This agreement lays out different requirements for various Google services, depending on how they make money. For services like Google Plus Local and Google News, Google just has to clearly label them as Google-owned properties. In areas that involve paid advertisements, Google has to show three links to competitors. In areas where all search results are paid ads, Google will auction links to rival sites.

Google’s only on-the-record statement at this time is “we continue to work cooperatively with the European Commission.”

Today, Microsoft announced that the Surface tablet is continuing its worldwide expansion, Yammer revealed its plans to add translation capabilities into conversations, and the Bing updated its Maps feature with a new collection of aerial satellite imagery. Also, European Union regulators announced today that it will fine Microsoft for antitrust violation in the coming months. Oh, and let’s not forget about Microsoft’s sale of Atlas Solutions to Facebook and the Bing Fund’s investment into Sonar. Whew.

Let’s start from the top.

Microsoft will roll out the Surface RT to Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, and Taiwan, and the Surface Pro to Australia, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and the U.K. in the coming months. VentureBeat’s review found the RT to be a “disappointing compromise,” while the Pro is “full of possibility.” The Pros sold out online within hours of going on sale in early February. Now, these tablets-meet-PCs will be available in markets around the world.

Next is the Yammer news. Yammer is a social network for the enterprise that Microsoft purchased for $1.2 billion in July. The company is working on message translation capabilities that instantly translates Yammer conversations into a user’s native language to “ignite multilingual collaboration.”

“Removing language as a barrier to cross-company collaboration can be a competitive game changer for multinational organizations. It opens a world of possibilities,” said Yammer cofounder Adam Pisoni in a statement.

This feature is courtesy Microsoft’s Translator technology and is an example of Yammer’s “accelerated innovation” following the Microsoft acquisition. The Translator supports 39 languages. This translation is particularly useful for companies that work with international teams. Yammer said that 65 percent of its seven million users are located outside the United States, and this could drive greater international adoption of the service.

On to lucky number three.

Bing Maps is released over 13 million square kilometers of updated satellite imagery today, which includes “bathymetry” data from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Bathymetry is not the study of taking baths, as I initially thought. Rather, it is the study of underwater depth of lake or ocean floors. Updates also include new base satellite imagery provided by TerraColor, with a resolution of 15 meters per pixel, and “cloud coverage” that makes it easier to see areas such as the Amazon basin and Tierra de Fuego. These updates “change the viewer experience within Bing Maps and the Windows 8 Map App.”

Microsoft was also in the news today for various wheelings, dealings, and run-ins with European regulators.

A report in Reuters this morning said that the European Commission is planning to fine Microsoft $2.1 billion (1.6 billion euros) for not providing data at fair prices to rivals, forcing developers to work with its products, and preventing consumers from choosing between rival web browsers from within the Windows operating system. Microsoft has apparently been embroiled in an antitrust battle in Europe for more than a decade, and the charges just kept racking up.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Apple’s Tim Cook will shortly be hearing a question something like that, as Justice Lucy Koh has ordered him to appear in court to give a deposition regarding alleged antitrust violations. Apple is one of a list of companies, including Intuit, Adobe, Google, and Pixar, that are being accused of agreeing not to recruit each other’s employees.

According to the DOJ, the anti-poaching agreements reached back as far as 2005 for Apple and Adobe, 2006 for Apple and Google, and 2007 for Apple and Pixar. The settlement at the time prohibited the companies from “entering, maintaining or enforcing any agreement that in any way prevents any person from soliciting, cold calling, recruiting, or otherwise competing for employees.”

The current lawsuit is a follow-on action brought by employees who claim that the companies’ illegal agreements harmed their employment prospects. And while Cook was not Apple’s CEO at the time, Bloomberg reports that Justice Koh told Apple lawyers that since Steve Jobs was copied on emails about the practice, she found it hard to believe that Cook would not have been consulted as well.

There’s currently no timetable for Cook’s deposition, but Google’s Eric Schmidt will be deposed on February 20, and Intel’s Paul Otellini will be grilled in the next few weeks.

If Apple and the other tech companies lose the lawsuit, which is being brought employees as varied as engineers and chefs, they would be liable for additional salary and compensation for the affected staff.

Justice Koh is the same judge who is presiding over many of the Apple-Samsung legal battles. You’d think she’d be getting a little tired of seeing the Cupertino company in her courtroom.

The Federal Trade Commission announced the results of its investigation into whether Google violated antitrust laws with its current business practices today.

In a 4-1 decision, the FTC found that Google wasn’t guilty of violating antitrust laws related to how it displays search engine results. At the same time, Google offered to change many of its business practices to appease the commission. For instance, Google can no longer scrape data from competing services (like review sites) within its search results. It also must offer local and privately owned businesses an option to opt out from its location-based services (like Google Places) and prevent outsiders from manipulating search results to gain an advantage.

The FTC first started investigating Google’s search practices 19 months ago, prompted by competitors that claimed that Google was making its own services more prominent and hindering true competition. For example, last year review site Yelp pointed out that Google was unfairly scraping Yelp’s user-generated reviews without giving proper attribution.

During a press conference announcing results of the probe, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said all of the changes that Google agreed to make to its search practices are legally enforceable — meaning that if Google fails to uphold its end of the bargain, the FTC can take action against them in the form of hefty fines. That said, there were questions about how the FTC was able to monitor search manipulation since Google isn’t making its search data available to the commission.

The commission, however, did find that Google was misusing patents that it got as a result of its purchase of its sale to Motorola. The FTC’s decision will force Google to license the patents, many of which are crucial to mobile devices, to other companies.

We were expecting the Federal Trade Commission to announce its final decision on its antitrust investigation into Google this week, but now it looks like that won’t happen until next year, reports Bloomberg.

The FTC has been looking into Google’s search business for the past 20 months for anti-competitive behavior. Earlier this week, we also heard that Google was planning to change its business practices, including no longer copying data from “rivals” like Yelp, and allowing customers to compare Google ad campaign data with other sites.

Additionally, the FTC was also readying a consent decree that would make it more difficult for Google to ban competitor products over patents that it already decided to license on reasonable terms, Bloomberg reports.

The moves by Google and the FTC could resolve the antitrust investigation without an actual settlement — something that’s obviously sparking concern among search competitors. Fairsearch.org, a consortium of Google competitors, including Microsoft, sent the following statement to Bloomberg:

Questions about Google’s search bias and other anti- competitive practices will not end if the FTC fails to take legally binding action to protect consumers and innovators in the U.S., where the market conditions and law are different than the EU.

After a year of investigation, FTC investigators recommended charging Google under antitrust laws after agents found that Google illegally abused its power as the dominant search engine. Now, however, Google may be ending the FTC probe and heading off any pending legal action by promising to change and be good.

After all, Santa knows who’s naughty and who’s nice.

Google, which makes over $100 million each and every day, has added so much advertising and sponsored results in the past year that some have called its actions a “war on free clicks.” Most troubling of all are the prominent positioning of Google’s own services — especially for local search and shopping results — at the top of Google search engine result pages (SERPs).

Now, however, Google is planning to change its business practices in at least two ways, according to a Bloomberg story. The search giant will apparently promise to stop copying data from “rival websites” and will give advertisers the ability to compare data on Google ad campaigns with data on marketing efforts on other sites and search engines.

It’s not clear, however, whether those two actions would address a key issue: Google favoring its own solutions in its search results — such as content featured in Google+, its social network.

For example, Yelp has been one of the most prominent opponents of Google, with Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman saying last year that “Google has acted anti-competitively in at least two key ways: by misusing Yelp review content in their competing Places product and by favoring their own competing Places product in search results.”

That’s also a concern of the European Union, which has investigated similar issues in the travel space, where Expedia and TripAdvisor have complained about anti-competitive behavior by Google in flight and travel search results.

When I contacted Google for a statement, a representative emailed me with this:

“We continue to work cooperatively with the Federal Trade Commission and are happy to answer any questions they may have.”

]]>1Google to promise it’ll change and be good, may end FTC antitrust investigationsEurope fines Philips, LG, and Samsung $1.9 billion in antitrust sting on … CRT TVshttp://venturebeat.com/2012/12/05/europe-fines-philips-lg-and-samsung-1-9-billion-in-antitrust-sting-on-crt-tvs/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/05/europe-fines-philips-lg-and-samsung-1-9-billion-in-antitrust-sting-on-crt-tvs/#commentsWed, 05 Dec 2012 16:38:00 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=584684And we thought it was just big U.S. window-manufacturing corporations that the European Union targeted in antitrust-like investigations.
]]>And we thought it was just big U.S. window-manufacturing corporations that the European Union targeted in antitrust-like investigations.

Turns out that domestic and Asian suppliers are fair targets as well, as the EU imposed a total of $1.9 billion in fines on Netherlands-based Philips, Korea-based LG and Samsung, Japan’s Panasonic and Toshiba, and France’s Technicolor for price-fixing and under-the-table market allocation deals.

The anticompetitive behavior that actually prompted the fines is ancient history in the fast-paced consumer electronics industry. Focused on yesterday’s fat TVs — yes, the CRT ones that actually aimed electron guns at viewers — the price-fixing actually ended six years ago. But while the wheels of justice may move slowly, they do move, according to EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia.

“These cartels for cathode-ray tubes are ‘textbook cartels': they feature all the worst kinds of anti-competitive behavior that are strictly forbidden to companies doing business in Europe,” Almunia said in a statement.

Philips earned the biggest fine, €313 million, as one of the ringleaders, while LG was fined €295 million. Panasonic’s penalty was smaller but still very substantial, at €157 million, and Samsung will be forced to pay €151 million.

Samsung and LG are repeat offenders, having recently been involved in an LCD TV price-fixing cartel.

A very real question for some of the companies is whether they can afford to pay.

While Samsung is flush with cash from the smartphone business, other companies — particularly Japanese ones — have failed to make as successful a transition to newer, higher-margin electronics. Panasonic’s stocks is at a three-year low right now and is fresh off a $10 billion annual loss. Toshiba is also in difficult circumstances, and near a five-year stock low.

]]>0Europe fines Philips, LG, and Samsung $1.9 billion in antitrust sting on … CRT TVsFeds may be cooling on Google antitrust casehttp://venturebeat.com/2012/11/21/google-antitrust-ftc/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/21/google-antitrust-ftc/#commentsWed, 21 Nov 2012 22:47:07 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=578595In the near-miss of a lifetime, Google may slip out of a sticky antitrust case with the FTC.
]]>Gaming execs:Join 180 select leaders from King, Glu, Rovio, Unity, Facebook, and more to plan your path to global domination in 2015. GamesBeat Summit is invite-only -- apply here. Ticket prices increase on April 3rd!

Google could end the year with a celebratory bang: a slew of dropped antitrust allegations about its core business.

Federal investigators have been on Google’s case for a long time about its allegedly illegal business practices when it comes to search results, but some insiders say the FTC might have less antitrust evidence than it had hoped for.

Google has been under fire for more than a year for how it treats Yelp reviews and similar content from other sites. The search engine and its corresponding Places product will simultaneously pull in content from Yelp to flesh out review sections on Google Places. However, Yelp results may be artificially downgraded on search results pages, upstaged by less relevant results from Google’s own web properties.

“We believe Google has acted anti-competitively in at least two key ways: by misusing Yelp review content in their competing Places product and by favoring their own competing Places product in search results,” wrote Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman in a blog post last year.

As anonymous FTC sources noted to Reuters, search rankings and Google’s famous search algorithm are the core of Google’s business and have been since its inception. If the FTC probe yields enough damning evidence, the case could have serious ramifications for the company — and if not, the company’s executives and shareholders will be breathing much easier come 2013.

The commission will make a decision on how to proceed before the end of the year, chairman Jon Leibowitz’s said last month. A government lawsuit against Google would require a vote in favor by three of the five FTC commissioners.

A decision to sue would bring to head a investigation that included interviews with rivals such as Nextag and Yelp, which both testified before the commission.

“We believe Google has acted anti-competitively in at least two key ways: by misusing Yelp review content in their competing Places product and by favoring their own competing Places product in search results,” Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman said last year.

“We are happy to answer any questions that regulators have about our business,” a Google spokesperson told VentureBeat.

In a separate run in with the FTC, Google agreed to pay a $22.5 million fine for misrepresenting how it collected user data in Apple’s Safari browser.

In a counterclaim against Electronic Arts’ copyright infringement lawsuit, Zynga has made an allegation that could vastly raise the legal stakes. Zynga alleged in a legal filing today that Electronic Arts chief executive John Riccitiello proposed an anti-competitive “no hire” pact with Zynga’s then-chief operating officer, John Schappert.

Citing emails allegedy written by Riccitiello, Zynga said that Riccitiello took the departures of EA executives for Zynga very personally.

The claim is part of a response that Zynga filed related to EA’s lawsuit alleging that Zynga’s The Ville social game copied EA’s The Sims Social title. During the discovery process, Zynga claims it found damning emails sent by Riccitiello (pictured at top).

“The counterclaim sheds light on what this legal battle is really about,” said one source who asked not to be identified.

Zynga says that in recent years it has received more than 3,000 unsolicited resumes from EA employees. Among those who joined Zynga were John Schappert, the former chief operating officer at EA; Jeff Karp, the former marketer of The Sims at EA; and Barry Cottle, the former head of EA Mobile. Of those, Schappert and Karp have both left Zynga.

Riccitiello was reportedly so incensed at the departure of EA executives for Zynga that he asked the EA legal team to pursue Zynga. In turn, Zynga says EA trumped up baseless claims to slow its competitor and make EA look better to its board of directors.

Zynga alleges that Riccitiello wrote an email to Schappert, saying that if an EA person approached him for a job, Schappert was to turn around and refer them right back to Riccitiello. Zynga says that it declined to participate in the no-hire pact, which it said is anti-competitive and violates antitrust laws. When Zynga refused to go along, EA allegedly became furious.

In the filing, Zynga said that Riccitiello wrote to Schappert, “Some of our people will always leave. But they are leaving for one place — Zynga. … I get that they can reach out. The question is what happens when they do. Listen and send them back to me, or their boss at EA. Or, listen, nod and lend a hand. … We are crossing into a place I don’t think we want to be. … But I believe you can and should find more talent outside of EA.”

As background, the Justice Department is probing whether the top executives of Silicon Valley companies colluded to keep hiring costs and salaries down by agreeing to stop poaching employees from each other. In a twist, Zynga’s own weak earnings report has prompted the departure of executives and employees who are leaving for other companies.

EA alleged in its suit against Zynga that its former executives likely gave confidential EA information to help Zynga make its alleged copycat game. Zynga says that EA knows that is not the case because EA formally released those executives from those claims before they began at Zynga.

Zynga alleged, “The truth is that despite years of trying to compete, and spending more than a billion dollars on acquisitions, EA has not been able to successfully compete in the social gaming space and was losing talent, particularly to social gaming leader Zynga. Desperate to stem this exodus, EA undertook an anti-competitive and unlawful scheme to stop Zynga from hiring its employees and to restrain the mobility of EA employees in violation of the spirit of the antitrust laws and California public policy. EA sought, by threat of objectively and subjectively baseless sham litigation, what it could never lawfully obtain from Zynga – a no-hire agreement that would bar Zynga’s hiring of EA employees.”

Zynga further said, “EA explicitly communicated to Zynga that, although Zynga’s past hiring was lawful, EA’s Chief Executive Officer John Riccitiello was ‘on the war path,’ ‘incensed’ and ‘heated’ and intent on stopping Zynga’s future hiring of EA employees. Mr. Riccitiello lamented the fact that Zynga was able to attract his talent with better compensation packages that EA just can’t match and feared losing additional executives and looking bad to his Board and shareholders. Zynga was told by EA’s legal team that Mr. Riccitiello had instructed them to obtain a no-hire agreement from Zynga that prohibited Zynga’s future hiring of EA employees. Absent such agreement, Mr. Riccitiello would direct a lawsuit to be filed against Zynga ‘knowing there was no basis and even though he loses.’ Zynga was explicitly told that Mr. Riccitiello aimed (a) to stop altogether or at least slow Zynga down from hiring “his people”; (b) to make Zynga spend resources and money on meritless litigation; and (c) to intimidate remaining EA employees and scare them from leaving.”

Zynga said that after years of trying, EA was unable to challenge it in the social game market, and Riccitiello had himself expressed admiration for Zynga, saying, “When it comes to Facebook, while we’re number two, I’d say we’re a distant number two. I mean, the other guys have lapped us three times,” referencing major social player Zynga. Zynga pointed out that EA’s daily active users on Facebook have fallen to 9 million across 51 titles, compared with Zynga’s 72 million daily active users.

Regarding Schappert, Zynga said he contacted them for a job in early 2011 and that Riccitiello “unsuccessfully applied enormous pressure” on Schappert to get him to stay at EA. Zynga said it was confident that it had done nothing wrong in hiring Schappert, but as a precaution, it took exhaustive measures to ensure that Schappert brought no confidential information to Zynga. In April 2011, Zynga entered into a settlement agreement with EA that reportedly cleared Schappert to work for Zynga. Zynga said it took the same measures to clear Karp to work at Zynga. During the Karp matter, EA’s general counsel reportedly said, “I have to get Zynga’s agreement not to hire any more EA employees or John is going to make me sue you.”

When Cottle left EA in January, 2012, Riccitiello reportedly said, “If Mr. Cottle reported back to work at EA, he would ‘pretend none of this ever happened,’ but if not, he would ‘rain hell’ on Mr. Cottle for the next several weeks even though Mr. Cottle had not engaged in any unlawful activity.”

After Cottle was hired, Zynga said, “Mr. Riccitiello was aware there was widespread dissatisfaction among his key talent, and that many of his executives were likely looking around and particularly interested in exploring opportunities with Zynga. Mr. Riccitiello was adamant about shutting down Zynga’s ability to hire any more of his employees. Mr. Riccitiello was placing ‘extraordinary pressure’ on the EA legal team to finally obtain a go-forward no-hire agreement – unrelated to Zynga’s hiring of Mr. Cottle – that would prohibit Zynga’s future ability to hire EA employees. If Zynga refused to agree to the no-hire, then Mr. Riccitiello wanted Zynga to know he would file an objectively and subjectively baseless sham lawsuit against Zynga for the express purpose of chilling Zynga’s future hiring of EA employees and discouraging EA employees from seeking out or accepting employment with Zynga.”

EA spokesman John Reseburg said, “This is a predictable subterfuge aimed at diverting attention from Zynga’s persistent plagiarism of other artists and studios. Zynga would be better served trying to hold on to the shrinking number of employees they’ve got, rather than suing to acquire more.”

Here’s the filings. The Riccitiello allegations are in the third filing.

You’d think we’d be finished with all the nasty antitrust legal issues surrounding computer operating systems by now. Windows is still powerful, but it’s a shadow of its former monopolistic self, and Mac OS X, iOS, Android, and Linux are all viable, strong, healthy competitors in various niches of the computing ecosystem.

But not according to the European Union. And, not according to Mozilla or Google.

At issue, according to an article posted by ComputerWorld, is secret APIs.

APIs, or application programming interfaces, are used by applications to plug in functionalities on a computing device or service. In an operating system, that might mean access to the file system, graphical outputs to a screen, or the ability to create and manage windows in an application.

Secret APIs are APIs that the owner of a system creates but does not share with partners or developers, giving the ecosystem creator potential advantages in application development. That’s exactly what Microsoft stands accused of doing.

“Internet Explorer 10 on Metro has special access to some very powerful APIs from over in Win32 land,” Asa Dotzler, a Mozilla spokesperson, writes in a personal blog post. Those APIs enable Microsoft’s browser to run quickly and efficiently on Javascript-intensive websites.

Unfortunately, however, non-Microsoft browsers on ARM processors are not getting the same treatment, Dotzler alleges. “Microsoft is giving its own Internet Explorer special privileges that no other Metro app, including other Metro browsers, are allowed.”

The upshot, according to Dotzler:

If we built Firefox for Windows ARM Metro, we would not have access to those powerful Win32 APIs and so we would be at an extreme disadvantage when compared to IE 10 for Metro. We could build a beautiful Firefox that looked really nice on Metro, but Firefox would be so crippled in terms of power and speed that it’s probably not worth it to even bother. No sane user would want to surf today’s web and use today’s modern websites with that kind of crippled browser.

Google will, of course, have similar concerns with its Chrome browser.

The EU will be investigating this claim, according to Reuters, and will be adding this new claim to the already-announced investigation into Microsoft’s alleged failure to provide a browser choice screen in a Windows 7 service page issued in 2011.

Today Google Chairman Eric Schmidt sent a proposal letter to EU Antitrust commissioner Joaquín Almunia that addresses four main concerns regarding Google’s search business. Specifically, the things that Google is under fire for include: giving preferential treatment to its search engine within results, using reviews/ratings of competitors without explicit attribution, and making it difficult for its AdWords advertising partners to transfer their ads to advertising competitors.

Some of these antitrust claims are rather weak (and others not so much), but Google has a hefty incentive to hammer out an agreement with the EU. If it doesn’t reach a deal that’s favorable with the European body, it could face a fine of up to 10 percent of its global financial turnover.

We’ve reached out to Google for further comment and will update this post with any new information.

]]>0Google forges a deal to resolve EU’s anti-competitive search claimsMicrosoft takes a reduced antitrust fine in Europe, still over $1Bhttp://venturebeat.com/2012/06/27/eu-antitrust-fine-microsoft/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/27/eu-antitrust-fine-microsoft/#commentsWed, 27 Jun 2012 14:45:00 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=480844Europe’s second-highest court has upheld a massive antitrust fine against Microsoft for hindering competition, but it lowered the fine slightly by €39 million to €860 million ($1.1 billion), according to the Associated Press. “The General Court essentially upholds the Commission’s decision imposing a periodic penalty payment on Microsoft for failing to allow its competitors access […]
]]>

Europe’s second-highest court has upheld a massive antitrust fine against Microsoft for hindering competition, but it lowered the fine slightly by €39 million to €860 million ($1.1 billion), according to the Associated Press.

“The General Court essentially upholds the Commission’s decision imposing a periodic penalty payment on Microsoft for failing to allow its competitors access to interoperability information on reasonable terms,” the court said in a statement.

Microsoft initially was ordered in 2004 to share product information and code about its server software with smaller rival companies, but in 2008 the EU said Microsoft had not complied with the order and fined it €899 million. Micosoft appealed the decision and has been fighting since that time to have the fine thrown out or reduced. Apparently, it didn’t convince the court well enough to throw out the case, and the company will now end up spending a total of €1.64 billion on the case.

“Although the General Court slightly reduced the fine, we are disappointed with the Court’s ruling,” Microsoft said in a statement.

With this case coming to a close, Microsoft will now be in the clear (for now) with European regulators. In 2009, Microsoft entered into an agreement with governing bodies that resolved almost all of the EU’s competition concerns, minus this pending case. Notably, the bodies had been concerned about Internet Explorer being bundled with Windows was creating an unfair advantage. Microsoft agreed to give customers a range of browsers to pick from to end the scrutiny.

Steve Ballmer photo: Sean Ludwig/VentureBeat

]]>0Microsoft takes a reduced antitrust fine in Europe, still over $1BEU giving Google one last chance to settle antitrust search casehttp://venturebeat.com/2012/05/21/eu-google-antitrust/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/21/eu-google-antitrust/#commentsMon, 21 May 2012 15:50:23 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=458207Gaming execs: Join 180 select leaders from King, Glu, Rovio, Unity, Facebook, and more to plan your path to global domination in 2015. GamesBeat Summit is invite-only -- apply here. Ticket prices increase on April 3rd! The European Union’s antitrust chief has given Google a final chance to settle matter related to anti-competitiveness with its main search engine, according to a […]
]]>Gaming execs:Join 180 select leaders from King, Glu, Rovio, Unity, Facebook, and more to plan your path to global domination in 2015. GamesBeat Summit is invite-only -- apply here. Ticket prices increase on April 3rd!

The European Union’s antitrust chief has given Google a final chance to settle matter related to anti-competitiveness with its main search engine, according to a Reuters report.

The EU first opened up an investigation in November 2010 after rival companies like Microsoft accused Google of abusing its dominant position in the search market to boost up its own advertising services. If Google is found guilty, it could face a fine of up to 10 percent of its global financial turnover.

EU antitrust chief Joaquin Almunia said both regulators and Google are eager to reach a settlement, thus avoiding lengthy proceedings that risk becoming obsolete due to the rapid growth of technology, according to the report.

“I believe that these fast-moving markets would particularly benefit from a quick resolution of the competition issues identified. Restoring competition swiftly to the benefit of users at an early stage is always better than lengthy proceedings,” Almunia said. “Google has repeatedly expressed to me its willingness to discuss any concerns that the Commission might have without having to engage in adversarial proceedings, this is why today I’m giving Google an opportunity to offer remedies to address concerns that we have identified.”

In a letter to Google, Almunia is said to have given the search giant a matter of weeks to come up with a first proposal that would satisfy all the EU’s issues regarding anti-competitiveness.

Last year, Apple switched its pricing structure with publishers to an agency model, allowing those publishers to set their own prices on e-books while giving Apple a standard cut of the revenue. However, the deal also stipulates that e-books sold through the iTunes store cannot be sold at a lower price anywhere else on the Internet.

A cadre of law professors has explained to Cnet reporters that precedents for the DOJ’s case may actually give Apple the upper hand.

In fact, a few of the J.D.s think the DOJ has a better case against the publishers than against Apple. Precedents include a 1982 case pitting the DOJ against IBM (the case was abandoned as being “without merit”) and the DOJ’s 2001 attempt to split up Microsoft à la the disassembling of the Ma Bell conglomerate.

“If the CEOs of the various publishers got together in hotel rooms to discuss prices, they are sunk,” said antitrust author and University of Hartford professor emeritus Dominick Armentano. As far as e-book economics are concerned, the DOJ would have a much easier time proving the publishers’ antitrust behavior and wrongdoing than Apple’s.

However, this doesn’t mean Apple is guaranteed a win in court. “I’m not saying that Apple can smile and walk away from this,” said Notre Dame law prof Joseph Bauer. “It’s just that the government will have to show that Apple had some kind of involvement in the original arrangement.”

]]>0Apple likely to win in federal price-fixing case on e-books16 states file lawsuits against Apple, joining DOJ’s antitrust fighthttp://venturebeat.com/2012/04/11/apple-states-lawsuit/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/04/11/apple-states-lawsuit/#commentsWed, 11 Apr 2012 19:07:53 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=415103Gaming execs: Join 180 select leaders from King, Glu, Rovio, Unity, Facebook, and more to plan your path to global domination in 2015. GamesBeat Summit is invite-only -- apply here. Ticket prices increase on April 3rd! Sixteen states have piled lawsuits on top of Apple, Macmillan, Penguin, and Simon and Schuster, four companies which were served with an antitrust lawsuit this […]
]]>Gaming execs:Join 180 select leaders from King, Glu, Rovio, Unity, Facebook, and more to plan your path to global domination in 2015. GamesBeat Summit is invite-only -- apply here. Ticket prices increase on April 3rd!

Sixteen states have piled lawsuits on top of Apple, Macmillan, Penguin, and Simon and Schuster, four companies which were served with an antitrust lawsuit this morning by the Department of Justice.

The suit is led by Texas and Connecticut, which, unlike the DOJ, are demanding financial damages be paid. Other states include Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont and West Virginia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The Department of Justice sued Apple and publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Simon and Schuster, and Penguin this morning for its new “agency pricing” model. Apple previously had a flat rate for e-books in iTunes, similar to how it charges a flat $1.29 for most songs in the marketplace. With this new model, publishers are allowed to set their own prices on e-books in iTunes, and give Apple a 30 percent cut of the revenue. In general, this is actually positive for the publishers, but it went a step further. The publishers have been accused of conspiring with Apple to agree to not sell their e-books at a lower price anywhere else. That is to say, if the e-book is listed on iTunes as $13, it can’t be sold on Amazon for $10.

This lowers competition between online marketplaces, and it’s competition that drives prices down for consumers.

Thus far Hachette, Harper Collins and Simon and Schuster are said to have agreed to settle the case with the Department of Justice. Hachette and Harper Collins are the only two to have settled with the states thus far, offering a restitution to consumers. Macmillian, however, says it will follow the cases to court.

“The terms the DOJ demanded were too onerous. After careful consideration, we came to the conclusion that the terms could have allowed Amazon to recover the monopoly position it had been building before our switch to the agency model,” said Macmillan chief executive John Sargent in a letter today, “We made the change to support an open and competitive market for the future, and it worked.”

The portion of the deal in question states that e-books sold through the iTunes store cannot be sold at a lower price anywhere else on the Internet. That’s pretty good move for Apple, because it means that e-books listed in iTunes cannot be undersold. However, it also creates higher prices for consumers and stifles competition.

The DOJ is said to have reached an accord with Simon & Schuster, Hachette, and HarperCollins to settle allegations that they conspired with Apple Inc. to set prices of digital books, according to a Bloomberg report that cites unnamed people familiar with the matter.

In an effort to protect consumers from heightened e-book prices, the Department of Justice could sue Apple Wednesday morning.

The DOJ is concerned with a deal between Apple and five other publishers — Simon & Schuster, Hachette Book Group, Penguin Group, Macmillan, and HarperCollins. The deal states that e-books sold through the iTunes store cannot be sold at a lower price anywhere else on the Internet, according to the Wall Street Journal. The deal is a good one for Apple, in that e-books listed in iTunes cannot be undersold. However, it also creates higher prices for consumers and stifles competition.

The Department of Justice launched an investigation into the e-book pricing last year, and eventually threatened the group of six with a lawsuit in March. Reuters is now reporting that, while three of the group agreed to settle the issue, the remaining three — including Apple — could face a lawsuit. The three publishers in favor of a settlement are Simon & Schuster, HarperCollins, and Hachette Book Group, according to another report by the Wall Street Journal.

Apple, which hit a market cap of $600 billion today, can certainly afford the legal fees, but it might not be worth the antitrust battle. Whether Penguin and Macmillan will be involved in the suit remains to be seen.

]]>0DOJ could serve Apple with e-book pricing antitrust lawsuit tomorrowGoogle faces more antitrust claims in EU, this time for travel searchhttp://venturebeat.com/2012/04/03/google-flight-antitrust/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/04/03/google-flight-antitrust/#commentsTue, 03 Apr 2012 16:36:23 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=411722Gaming execs: Join 180 select leaders from King, Glu, Rovio, Unity, Facebook, and more to plan your path to global domination in 2015. GamesBeat Summit is invite-only -- apply here. Ticket prices increase on April 3rd! Expedia and TripAdvisor have just filed complaints about Google’s travel search features as part of a larger antitrust probe the search giant is facing in […]
]]>Gaming execs:Join 180 select leaders from King, Glu, Rovio, Unity, Facebook, and more to plan your path to global domination in 2015. GamesBeat Summit is invite-only -- apply here. Ticket prices increase on April 3rd!

Expedia and TripAdvisor have just filed complaints about Google’s travel search features as part of a larger antitrust probe the search giant is facing in the European Union.

Altogether the European Commission has received 13 formal complaints, including the new complaints brought by the online travel companies, EC spokesman Antoine Colombani told press today. The commission’s probe of Google began in November 2010.

At the end of 2011, Google chairman Eric Schmidt paid a visit to Brussels to meet with European Commissioner Joaquín Almunia in person. At that time, a Google spokesperson told VentureBeat the company had already turned over thousands of documents as part of the investigation and did not expect any formal censure from the EC.

The probe kicked off when several parties brought complaints against Google for taking unfair advantage of its domination in the world of web search. These parties claimed Google was decreasing the search ranking of unpaid search results. For example, the claims stated that Google might lower the ranking of a shopping and product search website while increasing the ranking of Google Shopping results.

Another allegation is that Google set a lower Quality Score for its competitors’ sponsored links (Quality Scores help the company to set its ad prices; a lower score would mean a lower ad price). Finally, the search company is accused of setting up “exclusivity obligations on advertising partners, preventing them from placing certain types of competing ads on their web sites, as well as on computer and software vendors, with the aim of shutting out competing search tools.”

The EC’s office should be ready to make public its findings as soon as this month. Saying a preliminary report may be completed after Easter, Alumnia told press last week, “We want to advance in our investigation, but we want to advance on a solid basis, not because of a letter or some pressures.”

]]>0Google faces more antitrust claims in EU, this time for travel search